YEC Proof.

[LittleNipper]

I don't have a lot of time for this, but this is fun, on a cursory scan I found this gem!



When was this stuff written???? "some way, as yet unknown"??? Oh puhlease! I went to undergrad in the 1980's and people knew a LOT about the chemistry and physics and mineralogy of metamorphism. They have been able to put pressure and temp numbers with specific assemblages for DECADES!

"Marble is thought to be metamorphosed limestone." ???? Ohmygosh, people have known this for longer than _I've_ been on the planet. This is NOT a mystery.

Anthracite as metamorphosed coal. Well, DUH. I've got a coal geology book on my desk right now that features people's work on this going back well into history.

And why does the author hammer on Lyell like Lyell was the last geologist who practiced??? Doesn't he think any geology has been done since Lyell went into the ground?

Sorry but my wife and I have stood on Lyell's grave and we've done geology too!

More as I get time...

Well, everytime there is a FLOOD discussion, some evolutionist, or uniformitarian, or some agnostic, or some atheist; points to the accomplished works of 200 years ago -----such as LYELL and say, "But the FLOOD was disproven 200 years ago...." Does this ring the little bell? Clearly, if Lyell was an arrogant blunderer, just how valuable can his opinions, and studies be? Why hold such poor examples of scientific procedure up and say, " See, 200 years ago the FLOOD was disproven." The truth would seem to be that, NO, it was not. It is only being correctly considered now by those who care... Perhaps, instead of standing on Lyell's grave, someone should dig it up to make sure he isn't still teaching somewhere....

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, everytime there is a FLOOD discussion, some evolutionist, or uniformitarian, or some agnostic, or some atheist; points to the accomplished works of 200 years ago -----such as LYELL and say, "But the FLOOD was disproven 200 years ago...." Does this ring the little bell? Clearly, if Lyell was an arrogant blunderer

I don't recall saying Lyell was an arrogant blunderer. I am merely pointing out the FACT that geology has shown that Lyell's initial work has merit. We don't all just take Lyell's words as Gospel.

Perhaps, instead of standing on Lyell's grave, someone should dig it up to make sure he isn't still teaching somewhere....

Again, if you just took Newton's word for Gravity (and he is buried right next to Lyell in Westminster) we'd be OK, but it wouldn't prove much until you realize that 400 years of data on TOP of his initial findings seems to underscore how close he was. But I'll grant your point that new data comes along, new techniques. But to my knowledge the initial formulation of the force of gravity as GmM/r^2 is still accurate enough.

I was also pointing out that the author of this piece bloviated about various known geologic items that people have known for quite some time. He was casting doubt for doubt's sake, and the doubt isn't even real.